How do liberals understand the difference between 'positive' and 'negative' liberty?

This is a straightforward question that is pretty fundamental to how we understand modern politics, so try not to be caught out by the terminology.

The best way I like to think about negative and positive liberty is 'freedom from' and 'freedom to'. Liberals tend to emphasise negative liberty (freedom from), while Socialists emphasise positive liberty (freedom to).

For liberals, liberty = freedom to act free of interference from the state or anyone else, just as long as nothing you do harms anybody else (this is called the 'harm principle'). This is negative liberty.

For socialists, liberty = freedom to act free of any constraints that we might experience based on our social class, our gender, our race, sexuality or disability. Positive liberty is one step beyond negative liberty because it argues that liberty is not just about our freedom from the state, but also our freedom to do what we want, free of the disadvantages or discrimination that we might face in society that negative liberty ignores.

It is important to recognise that these concepts are not mutually exclusive. Liberals may accept the need for positive liberty, while socialists may accept the need for negative liberty. What matters from an ideological perspective is the emphasis that you place on each form of liberty. Liberals tend to emphasise negative understandings of liberty over positive ones (and vice versa for socialists).